Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]
FW 14 Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
FW 15 Mr. Barri Hitchin
FW 16 EIC
FW 17 Mr. Ewan Larcombe
FW 18 English Golf Union and Golf Union of Wales

Clause 17

Levies

Question (14 January) again proposed,
That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Mr. Chope, it is very good to be back under your chairmanship here in the second week of the Committees deliberations. Welcome back, as well, to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. It is good to see him back, although his colleague did well in his stead.
May I respond to the comments made during the clause 17 stand part debate? Before we adjourned, the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Vale of York asked questions about the scope of local levies and who will pay for them. Particular concern was expressed about their being used in place of funding from central Government. I will answer those questions in full, but let me first clarify the funding levels for flood and coastal erosion risk management, as hon. Members appear to be under the impression that funding has decreased.
The Government now expect to spend more than £2.15 billion on flood and coastal erosion risk management over the current three-year period. In 2007-08 total expenditure by central and local government was £580 million; in 2008-09 it was £660 million; this year spending will be £715 million. Next year, spending by central and local government is expected to be £780 million. As part of the fiscal stimulus package, £20 million was brought forward from 2010-11 budgets to 2009-10. The hon. Member for Cheltenham referred to the £660 million fund next year; that figure relates only to spending by the Environment Agency, not to the combined spending by central and local government.
I return to clause 17 and the matter of the local levy. The clause provides a route for local authorities to invest in risk management schemes that would otherwise not be taken forward. The hon. Member for Vale of York is right that the funding system changed in 2004, with most funding since then directed through a central grant to the Environment Agency. However, the local levy has continued since then and, for example, has raised £27 million for locally important projects in 2007-08. The clause extends the scope of the levy to include coastal erosion risk management projects, to provide greater flexibility to authorities, and to bring the levying arrangements into line with the scope of the new committees. To be absolutely clear, the local levy is not an alternative or a substitute for flood defence grant in aid, but an optional additional investment, voted for by local authorities to fund locally important works. We will provide funds to reform the grant to allow the levy to be increased by 10 per cent. The levy is tied to the Environment Agencys functions, which do not extend to surface water management as that will be the responsibility of the authorities.
The hon. Lady is also right that the same people always seem to fund flood defence work in this country. However, she is mistaken in her assertion that landowners and local authorities are shouldering the costs. Landowners do not pay the RFDC levy; they pay drainage rates totalling about £15 million per year to internal drainage boards. In return, they directly benefit from the water level management services that internal drainage boards provide. About £3 million is paid by farmers to the Environment Agency, which, again, pays for additional maintenance work that benefits their land. Local authorities pay the RFDC levy as well as a special levy to internal drainage boards. To clarify, the special levy is separate from the RFDC local levy and is not affected by the Bill. Both those levies are compensated by formula grant from central Government, so, in the main, neither the local authority nor the council tax payer ultimately funds that important work.
Along with the block grant in aid paid to the Environment Agency, taxpayers across the country are funding almost all activity by the operating authorities, even though five out of six properties are not at risk of being flooded. If anything, there is a case for greater cost sharing with those that benefit from flood risk management activity, especially as overall investment needs to rise.
It is also useful to set the RFDC levy in the context of the overall funding picture for local authorities. The need for local authorities to spend moreperhaps as much as 20 per cent. moreon flood and coastal erosion risk management was foreseen at the last spending review in 2007. That led to more funding being provided within formula grant, including to pay for levies to internal drainage boards and RFDCs as well as to fund local authorities own work in maintaining coastal defences and managing local flood risk. Under current assumptions, and taken together with the funding we are providing for the Bill, overall local authority spending on flood and coastal erosion risk management would have to increase from £90 million to more than £160 million a year in the early years after commencement, before it is clear that such involvement is more than anticipated and provided for.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Environment Agency: reports

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 18, page 12, line 25, at end insert
(5) The Agency must also publish on a quarterly basis its programme of regular maintenance work carried out on main water courses..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10Regular maintenance of water courses
The Environment Agency must undertake a programme of regular maintenance work of major water courses on an annual basis with quarterly reports to both Houses of Parliament..

Anne McIntosh: Good morning, Mr. Chope. May I welcome you back to the Chair? I would like to have a short debate on clause 18 stand part, so I will speak only to the amendment and new clause, which are not insignificant. The Committee will be aware that one of the key recommendations of the Pitt review was that maintenance should be not just done but seen to be done. I had one point of difference with the Pitt conclusions overall in relation to many of the flood visits that I madethose of 2000, 2005, 2007 especially, and last years floods in Cumbria. Although it is difficult to prove, anecdotally we were told that there is not now the level of maintenance that has been undertaken in the past. The amendment and new clause would rectify that.
My understanding is that the agency places annually on its website a maintenance programme. Obviously, that is a bit of a moveable feast, but if we are to address the issue and public concerns, the main thrust of the Bill should be to ensure that there is less opportunity to flood main watercourses in future. The Minister referred to the role of IDBs and how they are funded substantially by local farmers and landowners, many of whom hold positions of responsibility on them. We are told that it is very much the case that IDBs undertake a significant programme of maintenance that is public and there for all to seeas a vice-president of theAssociation of Drainage Authorities, I take that on good account. From the levies that they raise, they also make substantial funds available annually to the Environment Agency for the specific purpose of carrying out maintenance.
It is incontrovertible that the Government have increased capital spending on floods, although the insurance industry and flood victims would argue that the annual capital programme is simply not enough and does not go far enough. As a result of skilful parliamentary questioning, however, the Government have admitted that the maintenance programme has slipped in comparison with the capital programme. We want to rectify that. We want to hold the agency to account; it is a body that we hold in high regard and we believe that the amendment would help them and their reputation enormously. It will put to rest a fear, which has been expressed to us, so we are very much aware of it, that maintenance is not being undertaken at certain times of the year because of biodiversity, birds nesting and so on. That is also the case with the internal drainage board, but one can work around that.
Amendment 17 would insist that, instead of having an annual rolling programme, the agency publish on a quarterly basis its programme of regular maintenance work carried out on main watercourses. Obviously, since 2004-05 the number of enmained watercourses has increased. Another purpose of amendment 17 is to ascertain whether the agencys maintenance programme is less vigorous than it was previously, and whether main watercourses are being dredged and maintained. I have seen physical evidence of that. For instance, self-planted willow trees that had not been removed contributed very much to the floods of 2007 in particular, and to other floods. If the main watercourses are not being dredged and maintained, water will back up into the minor watercourses, which are the responsibility of the internal drainage boards. That is what is making them so angry. They have a full programme, to which they adhere. Their work is being undermined by a lack of maintenance and dredging on the scale that we would like. If we are to implement Pitt, he was clear that maintenance should be not just done but seen to be done. New clause 10 is a helpful technical amendment to a different part of the Bill.
Clearly, our fervent wish is that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment and new clause and make them part of the Bill. I hope that he will address the issues that I have raised: not least, that the maintenance programme is not as vigorous as it was prior to 1997. As a Back Bencher, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made political history by securing, for the first time, an Adjournment debate on that issue. He called for a better balance between spending on big capital projects in urban areas and spending on maintenance, from which rural areas benefit more. The issue touches the heart of all local communities, which are central to the internal drainage board. Given the Governments catchment management systems and some other programmes, flooding of farmland will increase as existing rural flood defences on minor watercourses are allowed to fail, because the Government will argue that there is no money to maintain them. The amendment and new clause address serious issues, and I hope that the Minister will be minded to adopt them.

Laurence Robertson: Briefly, I want to support the amendment and new clause. Although a number of Opposition Members have welcomed the Bill, we have said frequently that it needs strengthening if it is to have the desired effect and impact, which the amendment and new clause attempt to provide. My hon. Friend would probably also want to tie them in with new clause 11on which I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Chopewhich relates to schedule 3, on smaller watercourses, private drains and sewers.
Last night, I had a meeting with Lord Smith, the chairman of the Environment Agency. We discussed this very issue, among others. Prior to the new regime at the Environment Agency, it was universally the view that dredging of rivers was not necessarily beneficial. The new chairman said that that was not necessarily his view; each river had to be assessed differently, and although it might not be beneficial on some rivers, it might be on others. Will the Minister let the Committee know what his approach and attitude would be towards the maintenance and dredging of main watercourses? Each and every main watercourse needs assessing properly.
As I hope to address new clause 11 later this morning, let me say that repairs and trying to catch up when a flood has happened are essential, but are not the best method of flood prevention. It is too late then. Maintenance, which so often gets neglected, is important. As with servicing ones car, it is easy to put it off for several months; nobody notices until things start to go wrong. In requiring reports to be given on maintenance, my hon. Friends proposals would prevent such delay. I look forward to the Ministers response.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to respond to the debate on amendment and new clause, which would require the Environment Agency to undertake an annual programme of maintenance work on major watercourses, with quarterly reports to the Houses of Parliament. With regard to devolved matters, the implication is that reports would also need to go to the National Assembly for Wales.
The hon. Member for Vale of York asked whether the Government concede that the maintenance programme has slippedI assume that she refers to parliamentary questions. Although the maintenance programme has not slipped, what has changed is that there is a focus on risk management, and more assets are in target condition now than in 2007. The risk management approach reflected throughout the Bill and in our general approach is pivotal. Things have not slippedthey are more targeted.
The Government are committed to the risk-based approach to maintenance and that has been endorsed by the Pitt review in recommendation 25:
The Environment Agency should maintain its existing risk-based approach to levels of maintenance and this should be supported by published schedules of works for each local authority area.
I therefore agree with hon. Members that, in terms of both public confidence and accountability, it is crucial for the Environment Agency to be transparent and open in its planning of maintenance, and to consult on its plans with people who have an interest in how and how often it is done. The Environment Agency recognises that, and as a result is already going further than Sir Michael recommended. The Environment Agency consults with landowners and local groups on its main river maintenance programme each year. The regional flood defence committee approves the programme of works, which are now published on the regional pages of the Environment Agencys website.
The EAs progress on the maintenance programme is reported to regional flood defence committees. Such meetings are held quarterly and open to the public, and the minutes from each are available from each regional committee services team, details of which are on its website. That transparency allows anyone, including Parliament, to take an interest in maintenance schedules if there are concerns or a desire to do so. Information on any coast protection work undertaken by the EA will in future be made similarly available from the new regional flood and coastal committees.
It should be noted that the Environment Agency has a publication scheme in line with section 19 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and much of the information that it holds is already published as a matter of routine. Where information is not published, it may be available from the EA and other risk management authorities under existing freedom of information and environmental information legislation.
The Bill also provides improved tools for local authority scrutiny of flood and coastal erosion risk management activities. Those include the duty for all risk management authorities to co-operate, the power to request information, which we have dealt with, and the provision in schedule 2 for risk management authorities to comply with requests made by overview and scrutiny committees and to have regard to their reports and recommendations. That is consistent with the relevant recommendations in the Pitt review. It is right that authorities are held to account by local, democratic bodies.
Therefore, additional legislation on the matter is not necessary. To require the EA to maintain all major watercourses to a common or minimum standard would run counter to the risk-based approach and could divert resources from locations where they are most needed. As maintenance schedules do not change frequently, a requirement to publish quarterly, particularly to both Houses of Parliament, appears burdensome and unlikely to result in any improvement to the maintenance of major watercourses.
In the past, navigation authorities dredged some rivers to allow free passage for boats. That is still carried out on some critical occasions on navigable rivers, but the practice has ceased where navigation has declined. However, that type of dredging work was not carried out for flood management purposes. The EAs risk management approach would take that into account where dredging needed to occur.
I think that I have covered all aspects, so on that basis and with the reassurances on publication and accountability I think that we are aiming at the same thingI ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: I confess that I am disappointed by the Ministers remarks and I would like to press amendment 17 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have just a few comments to make. There has been some concern about the reporting process under subsection (1):
The Environment Agency must report to the Minister about flood and coastal erosion risk management.
The Local Government Information Unit believes that the lead local flood authorities will not be reporting floods, and I wonder whether there is an argument that they should be required to report as well. They will have responsibility to investigate and determine the risk management assessment and delivery of flood and coastal erosion risk management. In the event that an authority fails to exercise its functionthat is, whether it is in accordance with national and local strategiesthe Minister can direct that function to another authority, and yet recover the costs from the original authority. Obviously, that is a cause of some concern to local authorities. Has the Minister considered that possible scenario and what the outcome would be?
The lead local flood authorities must also establish and maintain a register of structures and features that are likely to affect flood risk in an area, including their ownership and state of repair. I will have more to say about that when we discuss clause 30, under the definition of features in that regard. The Environment Agency must ensure that key third-party assets are registered and protected. Those are structures or features in private hands that provide an important public flood risk management function.
The Association of British Insurers welcomes the clear areas of accountability defined by the Bill. However, it believes that there needs to be further clarity around how various authorities will operate, and how transparent their performance in their areas of responsibility will be. It wishes to see a clear process, open to public scrutiny, that will involve monitoring and transparent reporting of how the Environment Agency, national Government, local authorities and other responsible bodies perform in their areas of accountability.
The Bill sets out in clause 18 how the Environment Agency will report to the Minister and, under clause 19, the local authorities have a duty to investigate and report on risk management, and to enable the Minister to direct, as under clause 30. However, the Bill seems to omit a very serious matter, in that it does not place an explicit duty on the Environment Agency to report publicly on its performance or monitor and publicly report on local authorities performance in reducing flood risk. Is that a deliberate omission on the part of the Minister? Will the Minister see fit to return to this at a later stage? Once again, transparency is key to the involvement of the Environment Agency.
A number of water companies have expressed their concern at the Environment Agencys overall role. If the Environment Agency reports as set out under clause 18, will that be debateable either by the relevant Select Committee or on the Floor of the House?
The insurance industry goes further and asks whether the Minister would consider asking the Environment Agency that, not less than every three years, it reviews its overall performance and its relationships with local authorities. I await the Ministers response.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As Members understand, this clause requires the Environment Agency to report to the Secretary of State in England and to Welsh Ministers in Wales about flood and coastal erosion risk management. That report has to include information about the application of national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategies under clauses 7 and 8. In order to provide these reports, the Environment Agency will have to monitor the application of the strategies, as required by clauses 7 and 8, for England and Wales respectively. It is likely to need to request information from risk management authorities as well as collecting it directly.
I shall now respond to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York. It is worth clarifying that, in terms of lead local flood authorities gathering information, it is intended that existing reporting arrangements be relied upon wherever practicableexamples include the current local government performance framework of national indicators, floods directive products and reports prepared for and by local authority scrutiny committees and the Audit Commission. Additional information and clarity would be sought on a case-by-case basis, relying on clauses 13 and 14duties to co-operate and powers to request information.
In respect of water companies, let me clarify that as well: water companies undertake an annual reporting cycle, the June returns, and the Environment Agency will be able to draw on those, for example, to seek to ensure a streamlined and joined-up approach to reporting progress of flood risk management.
I shall now discuss how the Environment Agency would pull together reviews of other operating authorities and other stakeholders to make sure that we have a balanced view. The Environment Agency has drawn on a variety of sources, as I have indicated, from the range of bodies involved to produce the report for Ministers. Those information sources, which also include Audit Commission reports, will already have undergone a consultation process.
In respect of the duties that the hon. Lady mentioned on the EA to report to a local authority, that is already covered by the EAs performance monitoring, which is published on the website. Local authorities are also addressed through the national performance framework indicator NI 189 on flooding.
My understanding is that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can consider those reports under clause 18. It is also important that ministerial direction is given on the issue of whether lead local authorities are required to report. That information may be included in the EA report and the information may also be considered by the local scrutiny committee, as described within schedule 2. With this report we intend to monitor progress in the management of all sources of flood risk and coastal erosion. It is also expected to be used to inform policy development and to review priorities to make sure that effective and efficient flood and coastal erosion risk management is being delivered across England and Wales. I hope that the Committee are satisfied with these comments..

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Local authorities: investigations

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 19, page 12, line 27, after authority, insert
or the Environment Agency or Welsh Ministers.

To allow for Environment Agency or Welsh national investigations in the event of a flood in case the local authoritys response needs to be investigated or in case the flood affects more than one local authority area.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 42, in clause 19, page 12, line 27, leave out investigate and insert take proportionate action to clarify.
Amendment 104, in clause 19, page 12, line 32, after authority, insert
or the Environment Agency or Welsh Ministers.

To allow for Environment Agency or Welsh national investigations in the event of a flood in case the local authoritys response needs to be investigated or in case the flood affects more than one local authority area.
Amendment 105, in clause 19, page 12, line 34, at end add
(c) lay the report before Parliament, or in Wales, the National Assembly for Wales..

To ensure any investigation report is publicly available and drawn to public attention.
Clause stand part.

Martin Horwood: It is a pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship again this morning, Mr. Chope.
Amendments 103 and 104 address the national oversight role of the Environment Agency. There is a fear that the expectation taken from the Pitt review, that there would be a clear national oversight role that would have real teeth, that would establish a buck stops here responsibility, is not fully implemented in the Bill. We want everyone to know that there is one organisation that carries that active responsibility for all forms of flooding. Amendments 103 and 104 address the interesting power present in clause 19 that allows investigations into the carrying out of flood risk management responsibilities by other agencies. That power is given only to local authorities. If it is reasonable for lead local authorities to exercise this power in pursuit of their lead local responsibility for flood risk management, why is it not a reasonable power for the Environment Agency to exercise at a national level, with their even more important national oversight role?
The risk is that this national oversight rolein this clause and in other clauses in the Billmay be rendered rather toothless. Who is going to judge whether flood risk authorities, such as water companies, which are clearly outside the remit of a single lead local authority, are really acting consistently and with regard to, or in obedience to the national flood risk management strategy? It would be a major risk for even a large local authority such as a county council to pursue a water company, given the resources available for almost anything to local authorities these days. It would be a great deterrent for them to launch an investigation into, or try and pursue, an organisation such as a water company in order to try and insist on their exercising their responsibilities fully. In practice, an important national agency such as the Environment Agency would have the resources to carry out a proper investigation. They could address areas on a much wider level than a single local authority. Instead of the risk of a rather toothless national oversight role, the amendments seek to apply a little dentistry to the Bill and make the role more toothy and effective.
Amendment 42 seems to water down these investigative powers in the case of local authorities. It will be interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Newport, East says in support of it. It seeks to substitute proportionate action for investigation by the lead local authorities. I am not sure how it is possible to take proportionate action if one has not been able to investigate. However, I am certain that the hon. Lady has very good arguments in favour of that and I look forward to hearing them.
Amendment 105 is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. It seeks to ensure that any investigations that are launched and paid for out of public funds will not lie on a dusty shelf somewhere but will be brought fully into the public domain. It asks for the reports from those investigations to be laid before Parliament, or in Wales, before the National Assembly. That adds an additional level of transparency and openness to the Bill, so I am sure the Government will welcome it with open arms.

Jessica Morden: I am speaking to amendment 42; the reason for it has been identified by the Local Government Flood Forum. Clause 19 could be understood to mean that local authorities have to investigate and publish results for all floods, even where it is clear who is responsible or where the costs of investigating would be much more than that of the damage caused by the flood itself. A case might be a river with a bridge blocked by debris, causing temporary flooding of a neighbouring field. It would be a simple case for a farmer to sort out without the need for the local authority to step in and perform a full investigation. The amendment proposes to make it clear that local authorities need only take proportionate action to clarify who is responsible. It would also mean that a local authority would need to do something only if it was not clear who was responsible, and if it did, the cost should not be excessive.

Anne McIntosh: I take the opportunity to welcome back the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire; I hope he has fully recovered. I hope it was not the excitement of the Committee proceedings that took him away. I find some sympathy with the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Cheltenham and wait to hear the Ministers response.
I should like to make one comment on clause 19 stand part. While we agree with the duty that a lead local flood authority must investigate in the event of a flood, it is unclear which risk management authorities have relevant flood risk management functions and whether each of those authorities has exercised, or is preparing to exercise those functions in response to the flood. The Minister was minded to look more closely at the catchment management and the co-operation of local authorities in that regard. That is very pertinent here. I wonder what mechanism he envisages for local authorities to co-operate. I am mindful of the word that was used in an earlier clausepartnershipand whether that has any legal meaning in this regard.
While an investigation should be undertaken in those circumstances, the scale of the flood would presumably have to be significant, in keeping with the earlier clauses. Would the purpose of the investigation be to establish who was responsible in order for the remedy to be delivered? Would it not be important that the Secretary of State in this country or, in the case of Wales, the Welsh Ministers be informed of the result after such an investigation, so that we could all learn from it and ensure that the necessary remedial action had taken place? The issue of the Cumbrian floods spring to mind. It returns to the theme of roads being the responsibility of the highways authorities. Cumbria is not a unitary authority so it will have this problem.
In the particular instance of Cumbria, from my memory, the debris after the river floods subsided was left on farm land. If the land was public property, the cost of removing the debris would fall to a public agency. The land may also be contaminated if it has had sewage and other foul water in it. In those circumstances, could the Minister take the opportunity to elaborate for our better understanding on what the investigations would be and what their purpose is in regard to clause 19?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Amendments 102, 103 and 104 extend the duty to investigate to the Environment Agency and the Welsh Minister in the case that the local authority response needs to be investigated or the flood affects more than one area. I agree that it is important that a lead authoritys response can be questioned if it is not properly exercising its functions. However, the effect of these amendments would actually defeat the principal purpose of this clause, which is to give the public that single point of contact when it is uncertain which risk management authority should be taking action.
Sir Michael Pitts review identified the need to have a single organisation so that members of the public are not passed around without resolution. The suggested amendments could actually result in duplication of effort as well, in which lead authorities and the Environment Agency or Welsh Ministers are all required to investigate a flood event. The explanatory statement by the hon. Member for Cheltenham suggested that the authorities response may need to be investigated. But there is already provision in clause 20 for the Minister in England and Welsh Ministers to direct the Environment Agency or another risk management authority to act on behalf of a defaulting authority, if the Minister is satisfied that it has indeed failed to exercise its functions. In addition, where a flood affects more than one local authority area, clause 13 provides a requirement for the affected local authorities to co-operate with each other and ensure that investigations are co-ordinated.
The hon. Members have also tabled amendment 105 to require the results of any investigation to be laid before Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales,
To ensure that any investigation report is publicly available and drawn to public attention.
However, the Bill already requires the authority to both publish the results and notify any relevant risk management authority. The local scrutiny function provided through schedule 2 will enable the results of investigations to be considered locally. But requiring the results to be laid before Parliament is likely to be unduly bureaucratic and to impose additional burdens on the local authority for little practical effect.
A similar requirement proposed by stakeholders for the Secretary of State to be informed is also unlikely to be proportionate and the same effect will be achieved by summarising the information in the report from the Environment Agency set out in clause 18. But there is, of course, nothing to prevent authorities or others of notifying Ministers and MPs about any concerns that they have, particularly if urgent action is needed.
So let me clarify: in terms of the investigation, this is intended to apply to flood events rather than general local authority performance. Local authority overview and scrutiny committees can consider all flood risk management in their areas and it is important that there is accountability at this level.
As for the question of who will judge whether water companies are acting consistently, it is for the EA to monitor the application of the national strategy. As we have said, water companies will need to act consistently with this, so the EA will have a role in that respect. On the question of who will judge in an investigation whether water companies are acting consistently with the strategy, water and sewerage companies have a regulatorOfwatfor their water supply and sewerage functions, but the scrutiny committees will also be able to scrutinise a water companys exercise of its flood risk management functions.
The hon. Member for Vale of York asked whether the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers should be informed of any investigation. A large number of incidents could occur and it is not appropriate to refer them all to the Secretary of State or to Welsh Ministers. We would expect to be notified of investigations into major incidents, though. Some of these cases, such as the Cumbrian example, to which the hon. Lady referred, would also be investigated by the EA, and they can and would be summarised, of course, in its annual report.
The hon. Lady also asked about mechanisms for local authorities to investigate in the context of the partnerships to which the Bill refers. Authorities can work together; there are co-operation arrangements in clause 13 and provision for the ability to request information. There is no formal mention of partnership specifically. However, we have made it clear that the duty to co-operate is in the spiritand will be the effectof the Bill. That includes the investigation function.
I understand that amendment 42 is in response to representations that have been made to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East. There is, understandably, concern from a number of local authorities and others that the requirements as currently proposed could beand I emphasise could beinterpreted as excessively onerous on them. My hon. Friend mentioned that the Local Government Flood Forum, in particular, raised the issue in the written evidence to the Committee. It suggested that a
common sense approach should be taken with registers, strategies and designations. They should be completed with regard to need, risk and the value that they add.
It expressed particular concern that the definition of flooding is broad, stating:
In many cases it's not in doubt who is responsible so the LGFF suggests that a qualifying statement be inserted that makes it clear that the lead local flood authority only need investigate where it's not clear who was responsible.
I am sure that hon. Members will understand that there is a standard requirement for public bodies to act reasonably, as I mentioned and as has been discussed in Committee.
However, my hon. Friend has tabled an interesting and potentially helpful amendment. It would make it clear that the lead local authority should take proportionate action to clarify rather than investigate which flood risk management authorities have relevant flood risk functions. That could go a long way to ensuring that local authorities take a common-sense approach, which provides good value for money and adds value. However, I should like to consider further how we can most successfully address the issues raised and clarify the intended scope of the duty. With those remarks on clarification, I ask hon. Members to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Martin Horwood: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I take the point that some of the other scrutiny arrangements in the Bill may render amendment 105 unnecessary. In a sense, I agree that the most important level at which to have transparency about lead local authority investigations is local. However, I was not particularly reassured by his remarks regarding the national ability to launch investigations for the Environment Agency, which we seek to include. He talked about a single point of contact being very important, and implied that that would be the lead local authority.
Last week, the Minister told us, in reply to one of our other amendments, that the single point of contact was to be the national Floodline, which is operated by the Environment Agency. He cannot have it both ways. To start with, that is two single points of contact and I can imagine that, if there is more than one single point of contact, there will be disagreements between them about exactly who is responsible for what, and the whole system starts to break down. This is precisely the kind of confusion about which everybody was worried, and which many of us experienced in the aftermath of the floods. The amendment seeks to rectify that.
The Minister said that, rather than the Environment Agencys launching its own investigations, it was clear in the Bill that the Secretary of State would have the power to direct flood risk management authorities, which were not carrying out their functions properly, to do so. However, that implies that the Minister would act on the advice, principally, of civil servants, and without an Environment Agency investigation. That rather suggests that the Department would be trying to do the Environment Agencys job for it, further confusing exactly who is responsible. This is a poorly thought-out part of the Bill. The confusion of responsibility was one of the main complaints after the floods.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I just thought that an intervention might help to expand upon my earlier explanation. One thing I did not remark on was that we anticipate that local authorities will make use of the EAs Floodline service in providing the local service, particularly for the reporting of incidents, so there is a synchronicity between the two.

Martin Horwood: I do not remember synchronicity being the word that the Pitt report used; I think it said single point of contact. I think that that is what many organisations, like the National Flood Forum, have emphasised is absolutely necessary.
As I was concluding, our discussion has revealed a rather poorly thought-out set of interlocking responsibilities in the Bill. Those responsibilities need to be invested, at national level, in one body with the power to investigate and go after authorities that are not carrying out their functions properly. All members of the public should know that, when push comes to shove, that is the one body to which they can take their complaints, and which they know has the power to address them.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Ministerial directions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have a question for the Minister. The clause gives the Minister the right to direct a risk management authority to exercise a flood and coastal erosion risk management function. Under what circumstances might such a direction be given?
Also, subsection (4) states:
Will that be published on the website and be again debatable in both Houses? Presumably, a precedent is being set to other local authorities in similar circumstances going forward. So it could be a matter of some significance, a direction in its own right.

Huw Irranca-Davies: To clarify, the power within the clause can be exercised only where the Minister finds that a risk management authority has failed to carry out its flood or coastal erosion risk management functions or has acted in a way that does not accord with the national local strategies. Therefore, it is intended that this power be exercised in accordance with established protocols and local governments performance, and that, where feasible, the authority with primary responsibility is first given the opportunity to rectify any failing. We expect the power to be used only as a last resort.
There are various default provisions in the current legislation which do not require a ministerial direction. The decision to exercise default powers lies in the hands of different authorities. For example, the Environment Agency has default powers in relation to internal drainage boards. The intention of this new clause is to create a common approach applying to all bodies and to ensure that decisions about the exercise of default powers are subject to ministerial direction.
The clause allows for the direction to include a provision for the directed authority to recover costs from the defaulting authority for works carried out on its behalf. The clause also requires the Minister to publish and issue the defaulting authority with a copy of the direction, except where this may be contrary to the interests of national security. As to whether it would be published on the website, it would be dealt with as per normal with the normal Government performance framework protocol. This in effect means that it is highly likely that it will also be published on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Lead local authorities: duty to maintain a register

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 21, page 13, line 21, leave out subsection (1) and insert
(1) A lead local flood authority must establish and maintain a register, which in particular, must include information, including mapping, on
(a) structures or features which, in the opinion of the authority, are likely to have a significant effect on a flood risk in its area, and
(b) Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in its area.
(2) A lead local flood authority must establish and maintain a record of information in connection with any of the things specified in subsection (1), including information about ownership and state of repair..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 106, in clause 21, page 13, line 24, leave out and and insert
or are likely to have a significant effect on public health and welfare if flooded, including
(i) sites and structures critical to energy supply,
(ii) sites and structures critical to water processing and supply,
(iii) critical railway lines, roads and bridges,
(iv) telephone exchanges and other critical communications sites and structures,
(v) general hospitals, and
(vi) any other local sites and structures considered critical by the authority,.

To introduce a register of critical infrastructure.
Amendment 107, in clause 21, page 13, line 26, at end insert
and state of resilience to possible failure due to flooding or coastal erosion..

Complements inclusion of critical infrastructure.
Government new clause 28Building regulations: flood resistance.
New clause 6Planning
The Secretary of State must within one year of the passing of this Act work with other relevant Ministers to amend the Code for Sustainable Homes to ensure that homes are built with regard to flood resilience..

This amends the planning guidance under the Code for Sustainable Homes to make sure that flood resilience is taken into account in planning decisions.
New clause 17Resilience of critical infrastructure
(1) The Secretary of State may by order require utility companies to report on their critical infrastructure and their ability to withstand future floods.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of each report received under subsection (1)..
New clause 18Resilience of individual properties, households and businesses
(1) The Environment Agency must submit an annual report to the Secretary of State.
(2) In particular, the report must include information on
(a) the take up of flood warnings by property owners and tenants,
(b) the take up of additional anti-flood measures on properties previously flooded before reoccupation,
(c) any developments with insurance companies on anti-flood measures that could be adopted that would reduce the insurance premiums for properties at risk of flooding..
New clause 19Annual report from the British Standards Institution
(1) The Secretary of State may by order require the British Standards Institution to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State.
(2) In particular, the report must include information on
(a) the burden of proof required to obtain the kitemark for flood resistant products,
(b) the number of kitemarks issued in that year,
(c) the number of products which fail to meet the test of resistance which led to further flooding of any particular property.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of the report received under subsection (1).
(4) A report under this section must be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament..

Anne McIntosh: I hope the Minister will be minded to support our proposals. I understand that there will be a separate clause stand part debate, in which we can raise one small point.
The Minister is aware that we have set great store by maintaining and supporting the register. This amendment is what the Minister might call a technical amendment. It relates to our amendments which follow, relating to the clause and schedule regarding sustainable drainage systems. We are asking that the lead local flood authority must establish and maintain a register which will particularly include information on mapping.
The Minister will recall our earlier debate and the emphasis that we placed on mapping by the lead local flood authority. Regarding the structures or features that in the opinion of the authority are likely to have a significant effect on flood risks and sustainable urban drainage systems in the area, it is implicit within the amendment that the lead local authority, if it is a county council, will have cognisance of the highways and the road system. It is implicit within the amendment that the lead local authority will have discussed with the lower-tier authoritydistrict councils where there is no unitary authoritywho will be best placed to talk about major housing developments. Will the Minister confirm that that is his understanding if he was minded to support this?
We are also asking that the lead local flood authority will establish and maintain a record of information in connection with any of the things specified, including information about ownership and state of repair. This goes to the heart

[Interruption.]

Christopher Chope: Order. Those who want to converse should go outside.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful, Mr. Chope. Obviously we are reaching a tense and exciting stage of the Committees proceedings. I referred to SUDS and immediately a buzz goes around the room.
The Minister will be aware that there is huge concern that, if it is to serve its purpose, the register will be a register of all the assets. In his response to, and, I hope, acceptance of, this little set of amendments the Minister may wish to remark on the fact that we do not know where SUDS currently are. The lead local authority probably will know where the ponds relating to an overflow from a road will be, but there is deep concern that we do not know where the ponds and the urban drainage relating to new developments currently are. Going forward, if the Bill works effectively and if it does its job we will know where new SUDS are being created and we will move on to discuss who will be best placed to adopt and maintain them at that time.
New clauses 17, 18 and 19 are consequential in that regard. The Minister will be aware of the series of parliamentary questions on critical infrastructure that I pursued with him and I want to take the opportunity to express our disappointment. One of the primary recommendations of the Pitt review was that, as a matter of priority, there should be a full audit of critical infrastructure, not just stands and reservoirs. The Minister will recall that on a number of occasions the Government have said that the audit should have been completed by the summer of 2009.
It is fair to say that that audit of critical infrastructure has still not been completed. As we speak I am mindful of the substantial damage caused in the constituencies of the hon. Member for Copeland and his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham)I am mindful of the fact that, had the wind not moved at the right time, that mountain of water may have fallen on North Yorkshire. So, if you like, we are all in this together. The critical infrastructure must be dealt with as a matter of urgency, and that is the purpose of new clause 17. I am mindful of the damage suffered by various parts of the country in 2007, in areas such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury and other parts of Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Yorkshire and Humberside. It is vital that we proceed as a matter of urgency with this critical infrastructure. The critical infrastructure that we have in mind includes pumping stations relating to utility companieswater companies, electricity companies and gas companies. If their pumping stations are not above the flood risk level, the level of damage caused by flooding can become much more substantial; as we saw in Gloucestershire, where there was a serious threat to the drinking water.
This is intended to be a helpful amendment. We would like it on the face of the Bill for the Secretary of State to have the power to require utility companies to report on their critical infrastructure and their ability to withstand future floods. That report would be laid before each House of this Parliament so that it may be debatable.
It is a matter of regret and disappointment that the audit of the critical infrastructure has not been completed. That risks serious consequences for the management of present and future flood risks; I am mindful of the fact that flood warnings are in effect at the moment due to the current thaw and the heavy rain that has fallen in recent days.
New clause 18 builds on that. As regards the resilience of individual properties, households and businesses, we are asking the Government to insist that the Environment Agency submits an annual report to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and that the report includes information on the take-up of flood warnings by property owners and tenants. In reply to the previous debate, the Minister placed great emphasis on the importance of Floodline, but I am amazed that in some parts of the country the recent take-up of flood warnings in many areas was only 40 per cent. I include North Yorkshire and Yorkshire and Humber in that.
There are also problems if the phone number held by the Environment Agency only relates to the household or business, and that person is on a mobile some way away. There are all sorts of problems with relaying flood warnings. This subject should be kept under constant review. It is in all our interests to ensure that the take-up of flood warnings by business property owners, householders or their tenants in each case should be an opt-out rather than an opt-in. The Minister at one stage seemed to be looking at that, but we seem to have gone away from that proposal.
We would also like to insist that there should be a take-up of additional anti-flood measures on properties previously flooded before reoccupation. There is a certain tension at the Environment Agency, which expects that when houses are reoccupied, resilience measures have been taken. Where that house or business is in an area at risk of flooding, more resilience measures should have been taken, such as putting plugs higher up, not reinstating carpets, or putting tiles in where appropriate. If the property is flooded again, that house or building can be reoccupied more quickly. One would have thought that it was in the insurance companies interests to insist that such resilience measures are taken.
I can quite understand that there is resistance to taking such measures from householders and some business people, particularly where they own the property. They believe that it looks as though the house is going to floodbecause it probably willand they feel that the house will not be as easy to sell. The Bill must address that tension and I hope the Minister will look favourably on these provisions.
We would also like to see a provision that could be adopted regarding any developments with insurance companies on anti-flood measures, which would reduce the insurance premiums for properties at risk of flooding. If we do not make it in the interests of the business, householder or tenant to make good these resilience measures and if we are asking them to pay substantial amounts of money, then why is it in their interests if they are not going to have a reduced insurance premium? We would like to press the Minister and find out what discussions his Department has had, and what he has personally discussed with the industry to ensure that these resilience measures lead to a reduced flood premium.
New clause 19 follows on from that. We believe the British Standards Institution should be the body that says that the particular product the householder or business is being invited to use is fit for purpose. I pray in aid the example of the householder who owned two properties to let in Pickering, which was in the news once again over the Christmas period because of the snow. We now hear from the Environment Agency that Pickering is at risk of flooding because of the thaw, and we may still get more snow. That property owner spent £20,000 on flood-proofing the two flats to let, on the basis that the water would no longer penetrate. In fact, in 2007, having spent £20,000 the water went in just as quickly as if he had not done so. My question is, what come-back does that property owner have? We believe that currently there is none.
We would like the Government to accept new clause 19 to ensure that there are annual reports from the British Standards Institution that include information on what the burden of proof is to ensure that any product that receives the kitemark for flood-resistant products is fit for purpose. I have received a series of answers from the Minister and the Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government who has responsibility for this matter, and the kitemark is the key.
If a product is not fit for purpose and a property floods, does the householder, the property owner or the tenant who has spent the money have grounds for an action against the holder of the kitemark or the producer of the product? At the moment, that is a great omission and there is no come-back. People are spending thousands of pounds each year to make their properties more flood-resilient and the products are simply not fit for purpose. I am sure that the Minister and other Committee members have been asked by many producers to approve their products. I believe that is the role not of a Member of Parliamentperhaps I am doing us a great injusticebut of the British Standards Institution. At the moment, there is no action after the kitemark is issued.
I would like the Minister to agree to include new clause 19 in the Bill or to satisfy us that those who have spent money to make their properties more resilient have an action they can take. The report we are asking for the BSI to publish would give the number of kitemarks issued in the year and the number of products issued under the kitemark
which fail to meet the test of resistance which led to further flooding of any particular property.
New clause 19 is key to filling the gap in the law whereby we ask property owners to spend substantial amounts of money but if the products fail they are left out of pocket and have no come-back. We believe that the Secretary of State should lay before Parliament a copy of the report and that it should be debatable because it would have to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
This little group of proposals goes to the core of what the Bill should be doing to make good the Pitt review recommendations. We believe it would satisfy property owners who have spent substantial amounts of money. It would satisfy the Environment Agency that people are coming back into their homes and that their properties are more flood-resilient. It would satisfy insurance companies and we hope that they would offer reduced insurance cover and perhaps lower excesses in these circumstances. This is an important group of proposals, which we hope the Minister will support.

Martin Horwood: I am pleased to join in this debate, which I agree is as tense and exciting as any of our discussions last week on cross-border internal drainage boards. I will deal with the proposals in turn.
Amendment 26, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York, is entirely sensible. It underlines the need to clarify the continuing responsibility for SUDS after they have been installed. A weakness that is emerging in our discussion of SUDS is what happens after they have been put in and who is responsible for maintenance. The mapping and recording of SUDS would aid with that responsibility and I happily support the amendment.
Amendment 106, which I tabled, addresses the important issue of the resilience of critical infrastructure, which was an important consideration of the Pitt report. Recommendation 53 stated:
A specific duty should be placed on economic regulators to build resilience in the critical infrastructure.
Of course, in Gloucestershire we had two very clear examples of that. The flooding of the Mythe water treatment works resulted in the loss of fresh water for thousands of people for up to two weeks. I lost my water supply because of that. That was bad enough in the warmth and light of midsummer. Walking the streets of Cheltenham trying to find a bowser with water in it would have been a quite different experience had it been cold, dark and raining. There was a kind of camaraderie in the streets as people swapped information about which bowser actually had water and where the latest supplies of bottled could be picked up. It would have been much less funny if it had carried on for much longer. It was already less funny for vulnerable people such as pensioners. It is a serious issue.
It could have been more serious if the Walham electricity substation had been lost, and it very nearly was. That would have meant the loss of electricity to some 600,000 people, some as far away as Wales, and meant the loss of electricity for refrigerating fresh food and for water pumpingso we would probably have lost the fresh waterand the loss of the main electricity supply to hospitals, schools and all sorts of vital businesses. The cost would have been stupendous. Gold command briefly discussed, and rightly dismissed, the evacuation of Gloucestershire. Oxfam always used to advise people to keep within the villages in emergencies. That something as drastic as evacuation was even contemplated in the event of Walham being lost shows what an enormous catastrophe losing that critical infrastructure would have been.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman lists many of the things that could have happened if we had lost the electricity supply. In addition, one thing that could have been lost, frighteningly, was the power of communication the ability to get information to people. That would have been terrifying.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is right. All the computers switched off would have cut most of Gloucestershire off the internet. In this day and age that would have been a shock. The telephone system has its own power supply but that could have been compromised as well. What could have happened is a frightening prospect and Sir Michael Pitt was right to address it. However, in a sense, he was a little kind and the review was a little limited. He was kind in the sense that the Government were told in 2004 that a national review of critical infrastructure was needed. Because nothing was urgently pressing that they needed to take action on and there was no immediate example of what goes wrong when critical infrastructure is lost, the issue drifted and the review did not happen. By the time the floods hit, the national review had not been carried out. We are all aware of how great emergencies dominate the headlines for a few days or weeks and then drift out of the medias attention, and out of Ministers attention from time to time as well.
The Pitt review was limited because I do not think that Sir Michael appreciated that critical infrastructure is far more than the utilities; they are more or less all that he addresses in his report. Recent events in Cumbria underline the fact that bridges are pretty critical infrastructure and having your town chopped in half could be disastrousat one stage, that was potentially going to be for months for people in some towns in Cumbria.
Amendment 106 covers not only utilities, but also
critical railway lines, roads and bridges...telephone exchanges and other critical communications sites and structures...general hospitals, and...any other local sites and structures considered critical by the authority
so that we have a comprehensive register, maintained locally by the people with an interest in knowing where that critical infrastructure is. One slightly alarming thing that emerged from the experience of gold command in Gloucestershire was that until both Mythe and Walham were at risk, it was not aware of how important they were. For instance, the idea that when one substation was lost there was no back-up or alternative supply came, I think, as a shock to the chief constable in charge of gold command and as a shock to many of the rest of us.
I am grateful to the Minister for his letter of 11 January to the Committee, which points out a great deal that has been done on critical infrastructure since the floods of 2007. I am not alleging inaction. However, we are suggesting that the Bill does not create statutory duties, which the Pitt review expected it to. Should we find one day a less active and conscientious Minister taking the place of the hon. Member for Ogmore

Huw Irranca-Davies: Surely not.

Martin Horwood: He is not going to be there for lifethat would be a burden and a half.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman should have read new clause 70.

Martin Horwood: I would not put it past a Labour Government.
Should a less conscientious Minister take his place and should flooding drift off the political agenda, as it might do and as happened between 2004 and 2007, it is possible that the good intentions and the good record so far would start to drift away. The statutory duties are important, but the maintenance of a register relating to flooding at local level is a brilliant opportunity at least to put pressure on those responsible for those sites to be aware of the importance of them to the general population and to address the issue of their resilience to flooding.
Amendment 107 is complementary to the earlier one. It is obvious that we need to reduce the causes of flooding. However, as mentioned, flooding is a natural process and the intelligent and sustainable way to address it is to increase our resilience to it as well as defend ourselves against it. The requirement under the Bill for local authorities to establish a flood register offers the opportunity to promote resilience. Amendment 107 is designed to take those bodies, sites, or structures that we addressed in the previous amendment and ensure that there is some register of their state of resilience to possible failure due to flooding or coastal erosion. That is important for reducing the public cost of the emergency response. It is also important for insurance companies and for providing the public information that will act as a powerful incentive for owners of that infrastructure to ensure its ready state for flood events of the kind that we experienced in Gloucestershire, or might have experienced in other parts of the country.
It might also resolve the question that unfortunately sometimes arises of who is culpable when things go wrong. There was a particular issue in Gloucestershire that I raised on a number of occasions, where Severn Trentperhaps compared with other water companiesdid not seem to have built in resilience at the Mythe in the way that it might have been expected to. Compared, for instance, with national grid at Walham, it did not inform gold command quickly enough. When one closely examined, side by side, the accounts of who told what to whom, it emerged that even as local staff at the Mythe were warning Severn Trent management that the water pumping station was at high risk, it still had not informed gold command that there was an urgent need to act as it later did to save Walhamand so the Mythe was lost.
In that situation it is not clear who was at fault. There is an automatic duty and compensation scheme for water companies; where they are responsible for the unplanned interruption of water supply, they are supposed to compensate consumers. My argumentin fact Severn Trents initial acknowledgmentwas that the compensation scheme should have come into play. Probably over £10 million should have been paid to consumers in Gloucestershire for the inconvenience of having lost their water supply, for which Severn Trent was in large part culpable. I am afraid, however, that it tried to wriggle out of that responsibility; it offered a much smaller amount in contribution to the emergency response work and its shareholders got away scot-freeI am afraid Ofwat let them get away scot-free. Had there been a register that detailed the level of resilience, it would have been much clearer whether or not Severn Trent had made that site resilient enough to meet the requirements of the flooding threat.

Laurence Robertson: On that point, I think that the water company should have realised that something might happen to the works because the surrounding roads and fields flood regularly. Just this weekend the police put up signs because the road had flooded, although not badly. It is situated in a place that frequently floods, so it should have clicked with the water company that something bad might happen.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is right and he has a good local knowledge of that part of our county.
I am very interested in new clause 28 and I look forward to seeing whether the Ministers remarks on that offer any reassurance. New clause 6, like the other new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York, is designed to address the issue of resilience at household level. The route that we have chosen is to amend the code for sustainable housing. The issue is pretty simple. We are simply not building flood resilient homes in areas of high flood risk. I had a look at the way the code for sustainable homes is currently interpreted on the architects website Building Design. It states:
Architects and designers will be judged on the provision of rainwater holding facilities ... and the attenuation of run-off either to natural water courses or to municipal systems.
Where houses are sited in areas of flood risk, designers can gain extra points for constructing the ground level of buildings above the flood level, or designing the house with resilience against flooding to limit consequential damage.
Points may occasionally mean prizes, but they certainly do not guarantee resilience. That is a conscious admission by the architectural profession that at the moment the code allows people to build houses for clients that place them in a position of risk. That will then lead to insurance problems if they are charged higher premiums, or if they have to make a claim that will probably lead to higher premiums for all of us. It seems to be part of a head-in-the-sand attitude to the building of flood defences which is not shared in other countries.
In other countries there are standard building regulations stipulating, for example, that, in flood risk areas, power sockets should not be in skirting boards. They are put at waist or chest height where they are easier to use for quite a lot of elderly people. That is a perfectly sensible change which should be automatic in a flood risk area. The more extreme examples in the Netherlands are of houses that rise up on stilts; the whole house floats upwards if there is a flood. That might be a slightly extreme variation, but all of these things could be looked at. The current situation is clearly inadequate.
I turn now to Conservative new clauses 17, 18 and 19. The hon. Member for Vale of York is clearly on a bit of roll. We will happily support all three of those. New clause 17 offers another layer of resilience planning to Ministers. It is not too prescriptive. It only says:
The Secretary of State may by order require utility companies to report on their critical infrastructure
We may not believe that that is absolutely necessary, but it seems to be a desirable addition to ministerial powers, so we would happily support new clause 17.
New clause 18 addresses the interesting interlocking issues of household flood defence, flood alerts and insurance, which are also addressed in our new clause 4. We all want to reduce damage from floods and claims from households, but quite apart from reducing the human misery, there is an important function here in reducing the cost of insurance for everybody. Better flood defences and management of the water in the landscape are important, but there are other ways to reduce the damage from flooding.
There are novel ways of protecting individual households. The hon. Member for Vale of York talked about some products being available that perhaps were not up to standard, but suppliers have shown me some extraordinary new products in the past couple of years. One system involves lightweight pillars that simply click into the ground next to a vulnerable opening such as the front door. Artificial planks are then slotted in and there are rubber seals, so when the water rises up against the front door the whole thing becomes watertight. It can be put up in minutes. It is very lightweight, so even an elderly person could do it at a pinch. It seems to be exactly the kind of thing that might qualify for the kitemark that is suggested in new clause 19.
In order to use such systems, especially those that one has to physically put in place when there is a flood warning, one needs a flood alert, so it is important that flood warnings are part of the mix. We need to address the whole issue of flood warnings and alerts. We currently have generalised alerts covering broad areas. Moreover, the alerts are issued days in advance, as was the case in Gloucestershire, and are not, in practice, a huge amount of help.
What one really needs to know is that a particular level of flooding is about to happen in a particular area. That would necessitate people rushing home from work and spending the last 10 minutes before the flood water arrives putting a system in place. That could prevent a lot of loss of property and, in turn, a lot of losses to insurance companies. It is also practical, because Met Office technology is now much more specific. In terms of predicting rainfall on a much narrower resolution, the potential exists to precisely predict extreme rainfall events, but that does not seem to have translated into the flood alert system. The new clause is therefore welcome in trying to bring those things together.
New clause 19 takes a slightly different approach from new clause 4, which we will debate later. The British Standards Institutions kitemark scheme would be an entirely appropriate way to address the issue of finding a national accredited scheme for flood defence technology. I am not sure how the BSIs responsibilities can be enforced in primary legislation, but I am sure that the Minister will expand on that. The intention behind new clause 19, however, is good and addresses similar issues to other new clauses that we have tabled. We would like to see those issues addressed.

David Drew: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Chope. I rise to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a couple of questions. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee wrote a report on the July 2007 floods and its most worrying aspect, as the hon. Member for Vale of York knows, was that we identified that 70 per cent. of our critical infrastructure was in the flood plain. That figure is of deep concern.
I subsequently went to look at the E.ON substation at Over and was quite impressed by the work that it had done. It has put the station on stilts, which involved huge capital expenditure. There seems to be some differential between the contingency planning of the electricity industry and that of the water industry. It was made clear to me that there was clear back-up from other parts of the country and other electricity stations. Is that for legal reasons, or is the industry far more aware of the need to keep the power on if possible?
I have said before that the simple fact in relation to the water industry was that Severn Trent did not take up the offers made by both Wessex Water and Bristol Water to insert pipelines that would have allowed it to keep the water on. It chose not to do that in what was a straight commercial decision. It was not done because of the inability to action the mechanism; it did not want to spend the money and be beholden to other companies. That was a shocking and wrong decision, and I think that, with the benefit of hindsight, Severn Trent has come to recognise that.
Another, more general question is: when a station, whether it be a water pumping station or a substation, is coming up for renewal or refurbishment, who has some traction to decide that its flooding risk is such that a contingency must be put in placeas happened in Over when E.ON put its substation on stiltsto deal with virtually every eventuality?
I would be intrigued to know whether that is covered by the Bill, or whether there are powers under other legislationcertainly in terms of electricitythat allow somebody to say that a facility which, because of its location, could flood, either needs to be moved, which is a huge capital expenditure, with all the planning process involved, or needs to be made fit for purpose, notwithstanding the fact that it has not flooded.
I have seen what can be done; parts of the electricity industry are already addressing the matter. We have some protections around the Mythe, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham knows better than I do. I do not know how robust those protections are, what risk analysis has been done or what contingency planning has been put in place. In the nuclear industry, every nuclear establishment has to have a full-scale emergency planned reaction to all sorts of contingencies such as terrorist attack or plane crash. Such establishments have to do that as a matter of course. I do not know whether that is the case with our critical infrastructure. If it is not, it ought to be because people ought to know what they are facing. We all know that it was only the brave but incredibly lucky reactions of the engineer at Mythe, who decided to turn off all the gear before it went down a big plughole, that saved the site from being out of use for a lot longer. I ask the Minister these questions because they are important issues.

Laurence Robertson: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York. I also support a lot of what the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Stroud have said.
I mentioned earlier that I had a meeting with the chairman of the Environment Agency last night and he brought up the issue of the maintenance of the SUDS. The agency is concerned about whether the SUDSwhatever they turn out to be and we had a debate on that last weekwill be maintained. Poor maintenance will be a problem and they will become ineffective. The argument for being able to build houses in a certain place will not be strong if the defences are not maintained properly. It is important that we put something in the Bill that makes that clear. I am aware that house builders, including in my constituency, are putting forward the argument, We can deal with the water. We can deal with the run-off. We can deal with all these things. We have to make sure that they can, because that will be quite a persuasive argument when they put in their planning applications. If there is not a safety net attached, houses are going to be built in areas where they should not be built. That is an issue that I have touched on many times.
I want to talk about the position of Walham and the Mythe. As I have mentioned, I live close to the Mythe in Tewkesbury and it is subject to flood. The fields there flood very regularly; the roads flooded this weekend. They continue to flood, not to the extent of 2007, but sufficiently to give a warning that something like that might happen again. The hon. Member for Stroud mentioned that there are some defences at the Mythe. I think that I am right in saying that they are semi-permanent; they are not perfect. I do not think that they will necessarily stand the test of time but there is something up there. However, we have to be absolutely sure that what happened in 2007 does not happen again. I will come back to that in a moment.
The position of the Walham substation is worrying because it flooded badly. It was only the heroic work of many people that stopped it going down and the entire county losing its electricity, with all the consequences mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. The reason I mention that is that an application has been accepted, on appeal, to build more than 500 houses not far from the Walham site, on green fields that, at present, soak up water. There was a lot of flooding in a town called Longford, which is very close to the Walham site. People were flooded very badly in that area. My concern is that building on that site increases the risk to those houses, and also to Walham. Our old friend the regional spatial strategy proposes building an awful lot more housing not far from there. Therefore, we are making the situation a lot worse and a lot more dangerous than it needs to be.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham raised the point about whether we should build houses in a flood resistant or resilient way. I would rather that they were not built in the wrong place in the first place, but if we are to build them he is absolutely right: we should consider how we build them. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised that point on Second Reading. The image everybody has of Tewkesbury across the worldI have even spoken to people in Australia and other parts of the world about itis the iconic picture of the abbey surrounded by water. Everybody will recall that image. The abbey itself did not flood. There was water around the abbey, but the abbey itself did not flood. Building work on the abbey began at the end of the 11th century. That is a long time ago and we seem to have forgotten the principles that people in those days obviously understood.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham made a very good point about that. He also gave a good account of the problems caused by the loss of the water supply. Some people, I think I am right in saying, lost their water supply for up to three weeks. Most people lost supply for between one and two weeks, but I think some lost it for a little longer than that. To see the heroic effort to get bottles of water to people was unbelievable. Wagonloads of bottled water were brought in and distributed. The final distribution to houses was carried out by very young peoplechildrenolder people and volunteers. It was an absolutely extraordinary sight. We also had the bowser system, but this was a monumental effort that we cannot really expect people to go through again. I spent quite a while, on one particular day, with the Prime Minister.

David Drew: One of the reasons that we cannot go through that again is that so few of the bowsers were collected back. We will not have enough bowsers to run the operation again.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Getting water out to people was hugely difficult. That operation could not be carried out for very long. It is very difficult to get bowsers filled. I spent the Wednesday with the Prime Minister, who came to Walham and to the Mythe. He was on the phone trying to get people to fill the bowsers more quickly. I mention that because if the Prime Minister himself cannot move things on more quickly, then it is a very serious situation. If the Prime Minister cannot move things on, then who on earth do we go to? It was an extremely serious situation. I remember watching the late night news when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who had also been down to see what was going on and was very helpful, had to give an assessment to the Prime Minister on how things were going to gowhether the situation would become better or worse. I will never forget the news report saying that it did not look good in Gloucestershire; and that the Secretary of State would have to say to the Prime Minister that there was a great danger of losing the entire electricity supply. It was very frightening. As I mentioned in an intervention, if we had lost the power of communicationtelevision, radio or mobile phones that could not be charged upit would have been a very frightening situation. Looking back, it is perhaps easy to move on and forget, but it was a desperate situation and we cannot have anything such as that happen again.
In order to prevent such an event, we must start putting measures in the Bill. With great respect to the Minister, I keep hearing explanations about why certain things cannot go in the Bill, but that reinforces my concern. Although there is nothing in the Bill that I object to, there is not enough in it to ensure that we will not go through those problems again. Even if some new clauses or amendments are not absolutely perfectly wordedand I do not suggest that that is the casethey would be worth putting in the Bill as that would move us towards the situation in which we need to be. As it stands, the Bill does not do that. I support amendment 26 and new clause 17, and say to the Minister that we must put such measures in the Bill or it will not much improve matters. Amendments and new clauses have indentified in detail what needs to be done to improve the situation, and I hope that the Minister will accept some of the measures that have been put forward.

Nia Griffith: I would like to push the Minister for an additional explanation on subsection (2). We all understand the need for a proper register of structures or features that could have a significant effect on flood risk. However, the question is: what is significant risk? We welcome the fact that the register will be made available for inspection by the public, but people will be looking out for the detail of the regulations, which will be crucial. People want to know not only that we are looking at things that have caused problems in the past, but that we are looking to the future and looking out for those things that will be a risk. People become angry when they feel that things could have been identified but were not, or if they find that building has been carried out and later somebody says, Oh yes. It was always rather marshy down there. That is the type of comment that we do not want to hear.
Yesterday I visited a place where a housing association has provided some high-quality homes in a suitable setting. There are a small number of homes that blend in well with the local environment and fit into a small town. The name of the street is significantWillows close. One might wonder why, shortly after people had moved in, they experienced severe flooding. However, if we look at the records, we find that planning permission was initially turned down because of flood risk but that somehow, suitable plans were then found to alleviate the problem in some way, and that was supposed to be okay. Of course, it was not okay. That is the tragedy that can happen. The risk is not only to people in those particular homes. Many of us have seen what happens with what I call the sponge effectif one place is squeezed, it squirts out somewhere else. Therefore, if people build in one place, that will have a knock-on effect on other properties or playing fields, which become more waterlogged.
I would like an assurance from the Minister about the nature of the provisions, the details, the time scale and the type of updating that will be required. Things clearly do not remain constant for ever; there are changes to our environment in everything from the course of rivers to the coastline to the effect of human activity. There will need to be constant updating. It is no good having something that we can access on the internet by pressing a button if it does not reflect the reality of something new that has been built.
I remember reading an Ordnance Survey map that did not show Llyn Brianne, a vast reservoir in Wales. Having recently moved to that area, I was unaware of it, so when I went walking I foundextraordinarilya very large reservoir. People should not find themselves in that situation. People want to know that when they are making decisions, they have the necessary information.
I have one further point about the planning procedure. We in Wales have unitary authorities, which means that the local lead flood authority is likely to be the planning authority as well. That situation has advantages and disadvantages. Of course, there is a lot of streamlining with unitary authorities and they can be very effective. The considerable worry in this case is that only one authority is looking into the risk and controlling it. Therefore, the role of the Welsh Assembly Government Minister, and of the Secretary of State in England, is crucial in ensuring that the proper information is made available and that we take notice of it when we are making provision for the future.
We must have the most up-to-date modelling and information about flood risk so that people can make informed decisions when passing planning applications. People need to err on the side of caution and to be much more robust in asking questions about planning applications, particularly in low-lying areas in more rural parts of Britain. Obviously there is a crisis in places such as London, where it is very difficult to find additional places to build, but those of us who live in areas where there is a little more space should be ensuring that our provision for future generations is based on a much more common-sense approach and be prepared to say, No, thats not a good place. Lets put this somewhere bettersomewhere safer. I therefore urge the Minister, when he gets down to looking at the regulations following this Committees work, to make them very prescriptive.

Chloe Smith: I want to speak particularly in support of new clauses 17 to 19, but also about amendment 26. I start by noting that I believe that I am the only member of the Committee from the east of England, which is one of those rather large areas that are referred to as a flood risk in their entirety. Anyone who has visited any part of it will recognise that that is a very broad-brush definition. Coming somewhat closer to home, and talking about Norfolk, I shall refer briefly to the Norfolk broads, with which hon. Members might be familiar, but I shall first address Norwich, Northmy constituency.
I wholeheartedly support what my hon. Friends have proposed in new clauses 17 to 19, in that that is a way to give power to the people, through information, in a very specific, micro, super-local manner. Our debate has already passed over responsibilities that might reside at national and local levels. As I just tried to say, in a somewhat garbled manner, this is a super-local point about the way in which people might be able to protect their homes, down to the level of a rubber seal around the front door. It is incredibly important that people can know and decide aboutperhaps in descending orderfirst, structures in their area, which is referred to in one of the proposals; secondly, utilities in their area, following on from new clause 17; and, thirdly, the insurance available and the factors that affect insurance in relation to their homes. Of course, our discussion on these new clauses is not the only area in the debate where we have referred to that. This is merely one aspect of the entire insurance debate, but it is a valuable one none the less.
Through new clause 19, we come down to the most micro level possible of modifications that home owners and tenants can make with confidence in their properties. The example of modifications raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenhamthe pillar and plank scenarioput me in mind of a case in my constituency. In comparison with the very large and tragic floods that this country has seen, I am talking about only 12 homesa small row of homes that have what is as yet an unidentified or uninvestigated flooding problem. My constituents are using the old-fashioned version of the plank system. There is an elderly gentleman who runs out of his door when he thinks that the rain might be coming and holds a plank in front of his driveway. The fact is that home owners have to do such things. Hon. Members have referred to the time that people have to act when they think that the waters might be on their way.
I wholeheartedly support the measures, which could give home owners and tenants confidence in products that they can buy so that they can exercise consumer power to do what they can in the face of what might, despite our best efforts in Committee, continue to be the frightening and confusing situation of flooding.
Amendment 26 refers to mapping. As other hon. Members have said, a mapping provision would be important, and mapping forms part of the theme of information provision that we have already covered. I want to draw on an example that is local to my constituency, in which there might be an implicit question for clarification by the Minister: the role of the Broads Authority. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how national parks, and the authority in particular, fit in to the categories of risk management authorities, local authorities, planning authorities and so on in the context that we are considering. I hope I shall be forgiven for looking back at definitionsand perhaps forward at clauses 22 and 24 on regional flood and coastal committeesbut I should like the Minister to clarify where the Broads Authority sits among those elements of our work.
To return to mapping, hon. Members might have visited the Norfolk broads on wonderful holidays. Of course they have a large surface area, but I do not think that they are unmappedlike reservoirs in Wales, perhaps. However, the broads come into a small area of the city of Norwich, which often leaves local people foxed about what is the planning authority for a particular mooring in a part of the wider urban area known as Thorpe St. Andrew, which is in my constituency.
My key point is that the broads are not simply a rural place. They are also urban; they cross boundaries. As hon. Members have already noted, waterways do not respect such boundaries. The mapping element is a key part of allowing people to see, at the level of feet and inches, who is responsible for what. I wholeheartedly recommend that amendment 26 be accepted because it would afford extra benefit in such small-scale examples as I have mentioned.
Huw Irranca-Daviesrose

Christopher Chope: Order. Before I call the Minister to speak, I want to say that given the length and breadth of the debate, I do not propose that there should be a separate clause stand part debate.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chope.
We have had a good, useful and thorough debate that has exhausted many avenues of clause 21. I want to respond first to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli about what is on the face of the Bill and the question of future-proofing. I know that I sometimes seem like the reluctant legislator, but I come from the point of principle that we put in a Bill what is needed, but get the right flexibility to avoid the need to revisit primary legislation. We can build in future-proofing for future Ministers, through regulations or guidance. Although I might seem reluctant, there are sometimes good reasons, and I never seek perfection, although to paraphrase Nye Bevan very badly, I would say that any journey that does not seek utopia is not even worth setting out on.
As I go through the points, I shall have to take some time, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the Committees business managers, because there is quite a lot of detail to cover. First, however, I am always willing to put my hand up when I make an error; I have indeed made a technical error in something I said in a previous sitting on a matter related to the one we are considering, for which I apologise.
On Thursday, I referred to the Environment Agencys power to issue guidance to lead local flood authorities and others on requests for information under clause 14 and the register provided for under clause 21. The Secretary of State approves the agencys national strategy and guidance under clause 7(7), but there are other more general arrangements to which I referred incorrectlyI referred to the wrong clauseincluding a power to direct the Environment Agency, which is to be found in section 40 of the Environment Act 1995, not section 19A, as I inadvertently said. That is a clarification, but the mistake does not affect the substance of what I said.
As I suggested, and as I think one of Scotts lieutenants said as he walked out of the tent in the Antarctic, this may take some time. First, the hon. Member for Vale of York raised the issue of lead local authorities when she asked me to confirm that they should work with others to ensure that they have the relevant information that they need. I can confirm that the duty to co-operate in clause 13 already provides that they should do that. Similarly, clause 14 provides for information to be requestedI wanted to deal with that issue right up front and give that reassurance.
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Upminster tabled amendment 26 expressly to include Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems within the requirement for a register and record of structures. I agree that it is important to ensure that there is a record for both adopted and unadopted sustainable drainage systems. That is why, under paragraphs 22 and 23 of schedule 3 to the Bill, a SUDS-approving body is already under that duty to include all sustainable drainage systems that it approves on the register, while a record of assets is established under clause 21. To come back to the point with which I began my speech, it is right that the specific details to be recorded are set out in regulations that underpin the Bill.
The hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire tabled amendments 106 and 107, which would expand the scope of the register to include infrastructure that could have, as amendment 106 puts it:
a significant effect on public health and welfare if flooded.
As we deal with those amendments, may I refer again to the issue of SUDS being included on the authoritys register, which I have just mentioned? Just to clarify matters, SUDS approved under the Bill will automatically be put on the authoritys register. Other existing SUDS can be put on the register if they are relevant to local flood risk, which of course is the focus of the Bill, and indeed many of them will be. The ability to request information set out in the Bill will be quite important to that.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury raised the issue of SUDS maintenance. The Bill provides for all SUDS serving more than one property in new developments covered by the Bill to be maintained by county and unitary local authorities in the future. Those authorities can also choose, if they wish to do so and if it is relevant to the flood risk management, to adopt existing SUDS. I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraphs 16 to 21 of schedule 3 to the Bill.
Regarding amendments 106 and 107, there are existing requirements under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 for local authorities to co-operate with transport and utility companies in local resilience forums, including in periods when there is an incident. Such arrangements relate to a wide range of risks and it would not be appropriate to require a register of infrastructure at risk of flooding and coastal erosion in isolation. Maintaining such a statutory register would not add any value to the existing arrangements and, in fact, would place an additional burden on local authorities.
The Governments Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure works with the operators of essential services and with lead Government Departments to help to identify and protect critical national infrastructure against security threats. I would like to go into further detail on this issue, because it has been raised by a few hon. Members. I have stated before that the natural hazards team was created within the Cabinet Office in May 2009 to co-ordinate work across Government and to ensure that the appropriate standards of resilience were in place across all sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked what was being done in the water sector and I will address that point in a moment.
The Cabinet Offices critical infrastructure resilience programme is working right across Government to identify the risks to other critical infrastructure from flooding and other natural hazards. Action will then be taken to ensure that measures to improve the resilience of critical infrastructure are put in place before a hazardous incident occurs. That includes examining the balance between improving resilience and contingency planning to maintain the security and continuity of services.
To give the Committee an idea of how much has been done, the Cabinet Office has screened nearly 1,000 critical infrastructure sites for flood risk. It has identified 171 sites across the nine sectors of national infrastructure that could be flooded by rivers or the sea. By the way, the number of such sites in the water sector is the highest for any of those nine sectors, with the number in the energy sector the second highest.
As I mentioned before, the lead Government Departments are preparing a sector resilience plan for each of those nine sectors to examine the vulnerability to flooding of those 171 sites and to identify what actions are needed to improve resilience to disruption from natural hazards. That work is being co-ordinated by the natural hazards team.

Martin Horwood: The Minister provides some reassurance in saying that national attention is being paid, finally, to critical infrastructure. However, when he mentions statistics such as 1,000 nationwide and 171 sites vulnerable to flooding, he reinforces my impression that there will be not nearly enough detail. I do not imagine that things such as the bridges in Cumbria that turned out to be so vital; district general hospitals; and critical communications, which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury emphasised as being important, will be addressed. The local knowledge required to look comprehensively at the resilience of critical infrastructure is surely a vital addition. That would translate immediately into the emergency response because when an emergency happens, gold command is based among local authorities and agencies.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He has anticipated a point that I was coming to. He made an important point about bridges and locally important infrastructure. As we saw in Cumbria, there is a significant impact when such things go down. I will come to that point.
In response to the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I will give an overview of the 1,000 critical infrastructure sites and the 171 sites across the nine sectors. In the energy sector, 14 sites have been identified; there are 17 for the emergency services, 14 in communications and 63 for water. As I said, we will shortly bring forward the sector resilience plans and give more details of those sites. We will say what work has been done with the water companies and Ofwat to identify the actions that emanate from the identification of the sites. We are not in a position to reveal that today, but we will bring it forward in short order as a result of the work we have been doing.

David Drew: On that point, is there always agreement? As part of an agreement that a piece of infrastructure is at risk, is there a contingency to ensure that there is always some way for the provision of services in the area to be defended, even if there is no change in the logistical location?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Absolutely. That is a very good point. The work I have been involved in and that will be revealed shortly, for example in Mythe, deals not only with the increase in temporary barriers and what further work can be done, but with where sites have interlinkages and where there is transferability of services from one place to another. For example, we are considering how we can ensure that there is sourcing of energy from other areas if one area is affected by an energy shutdown. The same applies to water supply. I assure my hon. Friend that that is part and parcel of our approach to resilience. It is not simply to do with putting barriers around things that are identified as critically vulnerable, but with where water companies and energy suppliers have said that they can relay transmission.
I was asked what is being done at the moment. We have not been waiting. I reiterate that these are just some examples from different sectors. In east Hull and west Hull, there are sewage pumping stations where flood defences have been provided in response to the 2007 floods. At the Hull waste water treatment works, there are defences against a one-in-200-year flood event. In Exeter, the electricity distributor has replaced the switchgear in the substation and elevated the new installation above the level of potential flood waters. Fire and rescue services in Humberside have raised the IT and communications equipment 1.5 metres above ground level to ensure the continuity of service. The National Grid has invested over £1 million in flood defences, including on a 1.2 km temporary flood defence barrier that can be deployed when there are threats of flooding, similar to that used at the Walham substation in 2007.
With regard to the point raised, rightly, by the hon. Member for Cheltenham on the assets identified locally on the ground, I can confirm, if we take the example of bridges and other infrastructure of such vital importance, that they are covered by the work of the natural hazards team at the Cabinet Office, as I have just mentioned. They are also included in some of the work on critical infrastructure. For example, Network Rail has assessed its bridges that are over water for scour damage. They are part and parcel of those considerations, so we do not ignore those assets.

Jessica Morden: I appreciate the Ministers giving way, as he has done so many times today. I would like reassurance on that point before he moves on. In constituencies such as mine, which has seven bridges, the Swansea to Paddington railway line and cross-border issues relating to electricity and sewerage works, will he reassure me that there will be full discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government about some of those cross-border issues, particularly with regard to transport links?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Absolutely. I can give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance that that already takes place within the Cabinet Office discussions, which include the input from the Welsh Assembly Government.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister does not seem to have responded to my remarks that they are woefully behind their schedule on critical infrastructure and on the hazards team. I commend their work, but they should have reported by spring 2009.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I understand the hon. Ladys point. The review of Pitt progress provided in December, which I am sure all Members have read, did show significant progress across a range of areas, but that area required further work, and I acknowledge that. It is pointless to say that we have delivered everything on it. The work undertaken shows that we are clearly progressing extremely well, and the sector resilience plans are well progressed. I hope to make a further statement on everything that has been done. I take the hon. Ladys point, but it is not as if we have done no work in that regard.

Martin Horwood: Is not the Minister underlining the limits of centralisation? He is trying to list a load of things in Exeter and so on, but the scale of what has to be done and the number of responsibilities, many of which do not relate to Government, such as the responsibilities of water companies, the National Grid and other private owners, show that that would be much more effectively done if there was a focus on carrying it out at the local level, because that would result in much more comprehensive attention to detail, based on local knowledge. It cannot all be done by Government.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, just to clarify, the local resilience forums, which play such a pivotal role, have a key role in considering the risk to local infrastructure and contingency planning. They include all the key local bodies, including local authorities, NHS trusts, which he mentioned, and emergency services. For example, the Workington bridge will not have been categorised as national critical infrastructure, but the local resilience forum has identified it, and that is how it will work, so the local resilience forums can bring forward parts of the infrastructure because, as he is right to say, the local input is absolutely imperative.
The Governments commission for the protection of national infrastructure will work, as I have mentioned, with the operators of essential services and lead Departments to identify and help protect critical national infrastructure against security threats.
On the question put by the hon. Member for Vale of York on what would help households know the best way to spend money to build in flood resilience, we are currently doing research on flood resilience and guidance. Following that, we will consult this spring on new guidance on flood resilience. I have discussed with her, the hon. Member for Cheltenham and others the need to do more on that and on flood-resilient building standards. That is in advance of, and in addition to, longer-term consultation on possible regulatory changes that will help deliver greater awareness, as will the Environment Agency schemes we fund to install flood products. I will return to that point shortly.
New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to amend the code for sustainable homes to ensure that new homes are built with regard to flood resiliencethe point that I just touched on. I recognise that the objective of the new clause is to get new homes built with appropriate flood resilience. I will expand on this in some detail. However, we believe that as a result of PPS25, which we discussed previouslyI do not want to go over that issue in its broad contextwe already have a clear policy framework in place to deliver it. PPS25 is clear that for developments where there is a residual risk of flooding, local authorities should consider how the design should incorporate flood resilience. It then points to guidance issued jointly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, by the Department for Communities and Local Government and by the Environment Agency on building in flood resilience.
Members of the Committee will be interested to know that in respect of Cumbria, the Association of British Insurers has revised and refreshed the guidance that it is issuing to all householders. It has strengthened the guidance on resilience repair and made clear to individual householders the potential benefits and cost savings on their insurance if they take up the issues. I will go into further detail on that as well.
Further to that, as I will explain shortly the Government are also considering how flood resilience and resistance might be improved in the building regulations for new buildings and repairs to existing homes. In practice, the code for sustainable homes is already aligned with PPS25, as it encourages development in low flood risk areas and promotes measures to reduce the impact of flooding in higher-risk areas.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister may be coming to it, but there is the issue of the new houses themselves being flood-resistant. Also, there is the need to avoid water run-off on to other areasthe water displacement. Will that be included in the assessment?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Again, the hon. Gentleman anticipates a point that I am coming to. It is a good point. However, let me work my way towards it, because I am trying to string together a lot of points with a broad rationale.
As I was saying, the code for sustainable homes is already aligned with PPS25 in practice. Although homes built with public money are required to be built to code level 3, for private house builders the code is voluntary. Given that we have no plans to make building to the code mandatory, an amendment to the code would not necessarily deliver the assurance that new homes would be built with flood resilience, which is what the hon. Member seeks.
Let me turn to the code for sustainable homes.

Martin Horwood: The Minister is kind. It makes sense if one is in favouras we areof making the code mandatory.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, okay. Let me expand further. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier, there is more than one way to skin this particular cat.
Flood risk is addressed in the Sur 2 element of the code for sustainable homes. This aims to encourage housing development in low flood risk areas or to take measures to reduce the impact of flooding on houses built in areas with a medium or high risk of flooding. In a code assessment, two credits are available for developments situated in zone 1, which is a low annual probability of flooding and where the site-specific flood risk assessment indicates that there is a low risk of flooding from all sources. One credit is available for developments situated in zones 2 and 3a, which are medium and high annual probability of flooding, where the finished ground floor of all habitable parts of dwellings and access routes to the ground level and the site are placed at least 600 mm above the design flood level of the flood zone. The flood risk assessment accompanying the planning application must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority and statutory body that the development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed.
Let me consider whether we should have a mandatory code. Mandatory standards for construction of new homes are laid down in the building regulations. The code is only effectively mandatory for publicly funded housingI know that the hon. Gentleman would say make it mandatory for everything. If it were decided that resilience standards should be made mandatory, the right place to include them would be the building regulations. I will return to that in a moment. The Government have made a commitment to consider including resilience standards in the building regulations.
In preparation for a wider public consultation as part of the review for the changes due in 2013, we will consult in the spring on issues that might be reflected in future flood performance standards for new buildings and repairs and how they might be incorporated in the building regulations. It is a valid point. In Cumbria, Hull, Gloucesterindeed, everywherewe have seen that some of the simple building resilience measures that can be introduced into homes make a huge difference.
Indeed, when those measures are coupled with flood warnings, what I saw on the ground in Cumbriaand what I am sure the hon. Member for Vale of York saw when she visited Waleswas that the work of the local flood forum was combined with the advanced flood warnings that were given. That work was then combined with the actions of people in Keswick or elsewhere, who had put basic, simple flood resilience measures in their homes. Those factors made a material difference, first, to the damage sustained in the property and peoples ability to get back into their house in a couple of days rather than months and, secondly, to peoples insurance premium in future. When those things are pulled together, they make sense.
Let me go on to what I think we can do, which relates to Government new clause 28. The hon. Member for Vale of York also tabled new clause 18, which would require the Environment Agency to report annually on flood warnings, individual property measures and insurance. I thank her for raising that issue. We already provide in clause 18 for the EA to report more widely and for Ministers to set the time scales and the contents of the report. So Ministers will be able to specify that sort of issue, including the matters that she has identified in the amendment. It should be noted that the EA already reports on flood warning as part of its corporate score card, which is published on the board as part of its website. Ministers discuss that with the EA in detailas well.
The hon. Lady also referred to flood warnings and opt-out. As hon. Members know, the EA is producing a roll-out of the strategy for improved flood warning. We have come on a lot, but we still need to encourage the take-up and so on. Of course, the flood warnings are targeted; they are not general, including in parts of Cumbria. Flood warnings were not issued everywhere in Cumbria; they were targeted at those areas identified to be at risk of flooding. Let me give something of an update on that. The report on Pitt that we published in December made it clear that the work we have been doing on the opt-out approachrecommendation 62 of Pittwill be completed by February 2010, when our thoughts on that will be made tangible and real.
The hon. Member for Vale of York also tabled new clause 19, which would provide for a power for the Secretary of State to make an order to require annual reports from the British Standards Institution on flood resistance products. The measure would require such reports to be laid before Parliament and approved by each House. Ensuring that individual residents have complete confidence in the products they are using is an issueI acknowledge that. To gain the BSI kitemark, products have to undergo rigorous testing to demonstrate that they can provide effective property-level flood protection. Information about businesses holding the kitemark is also available on the BSI websitewww.kitemark.com. However, let me expand on the issue.
The kitemark scheme is a British standards accreditation scheme for products. People will be very familiar with British standards accreditation. In the case of flood protection products, accreditation is given to those who comply with publicly available specificationPAS1188. To gain the BSI kitemark, products must undergo rigorous testing to demonstrate that they can provide effective property-level flood protection.
A working group that includes representatives from flood resilience product manufacturers, the Flood Protection Association, the Association of British Insurers, insurance companies, DEFRA and HR Wallingford has recently assessed the current BSI kitemark scheme for flood protection products. Its conclusion was that the kitemarking scheme is necessary to ensure product quality compliance and as a result it was reissued last April. So the group has confidence that the scheme is right. However, it is also important to say that we will keep an eye on the matter to ensure that the right products are being used in the right situations. That is key. We have a good grip on quality assurance and on the products, but the other aspect is to ensure that the advice given on the ground either by the ABI or its members to individual householders means that people are using the right product in the right place.

Anne McIntosh: I hope that the Minister agrees that it should not be for parliamentarians to say what is the right or wrong product. I applaud the working group.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed.

Anne McIntosh: I would, however, like the Minister to address two issues. When the guidance is followed and the kitemark is issued but the product fails, what right of redress does the consumer have? Is the insurance industry minded to reflect in its premiums or excesses the fact that the investment has been made?

Huw Irranca-Davies: On the latter point, I am encouraged at the moment because the ABI has revisited and revised its guidance on the back of the Cumbrian floods, and its current guidance acknowledges that if someone appropriately fits flood resilience products in their house, it could have an effect on insurance premiums. That is important, but there is wider work to be done, not just on resilience but on the role of the various partnersthe Government, the ABI, local flood forums, and othersin jointly stepping up to the mark, and on how we properly promote the level of expertise regarding the right product in the right place. We are considering some sort of pilot project based on Cumbria, which would look at what is happening on the groundwith information going out, resilience products being fitted and, interestinglythe behavioural response of individual householders. When people are offered resilience products, do they go for those products or is their desire to have an appropriate local builder in? The response of individual householders is an important factor.
Powers in the Building Act 1984 allow regulations to be made to cover resilience or resistance in respect of new buildings or major alterations. They do not allow for similar provisions in respect of most types of minor repair work, for example, requiring simple things such as the replacement of flood-damaged plaster with more resilient plaster, or electrical sockets to be moved up the wall in the likelihood of future floods. Amending schedule 1 of the 1984 Act in that way would ensure that building regulations could be made in relation to any type of flood resilience and resistance work to a building. We remain committed to considering the potential for regulating for flood resilience and resistance, and we will consult in the spring. At the same time, we plan to consult on additional guidance to boost what is already published to help those seeking to build in flood resilience. That guidance can then be consulted when dealing with planning permissions to ensure that development incorporates flood resilience when necessary.
I should make it clear on new clause 28 that any subsequent regulation under the power created by that Government amendment will have to be based on a thorough understanding of the costs and benefits of different flood resilience and resistance measures. To be justified, regulation is likely to have to be targeted on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. One would not necessarily simply want to say to every householder, You have to do x, y and z regardless. I would not, therefore, like to predict exactly how any subsequent regulation might be framed, but our commitment is clear. Similarly, in advance of further detailed work to establish a better understanding of the costs and benefits of different approaches, I would not want to commit the Government to regulation. However, the amendment offers a useful additional power to the Government to regulate for flood resistance and resilience, if the further work that we are undertaking demonstrates a clear need to do so.
The hon. Member for Vale of York raised the issue of the consumer having recourse if one of the products goes wrong. If a product fails, under existing legislation, the consumer might have a claim against the manufacturer, if the product has been correctly installedthat is the key issue. The additional guidance on flood resilience will also help raise awareness of how to build in proper and appropriate flood resilience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli rightly raised the detail of the regulations. Some local authorities are already starting to record information, and we are working with the Environment Agency to ensure that the appropriate tools and systems are available to them. I will write with more detail on that. The register will allow a better understanding of how flood risk is managed, particularly local risk, and it will feed into the surface water management plans. Also, just to clarify matters, the Bill requires a register and a record to be maintained, so it will indeed, as part and parcel of that, be updated as well. That is the future-proofing element to which my hon. Friend referred.
I will now consider the comments on mapping made by the hon. Member for Norwich, North. The flood risk regulations implementing the flood directive provide for collation of assessment, mapping and risk management plans for all sources of flood risk, and will incorporate outputs from surface water management plans. Any confusion over responsibility will be resolved by the lead local authority under clause 19, which we discussed earlier.
In respect of how the national parks and the Broads Authority fit into the picture, it is a good question. They are not risk management authorities, but we have taken the power under clause 29 to add, if we are so minded, themor other bodiesas bodies which must have regard to strategies under clause 11, or clause 12 for the national parks in Wales.
With those detailed comments I ask hon. Members to consider withdrawing the amendment and, when the time comes, supporting new clause 28.

Martin Horwood: I am encouraged by the Ministers remarks. I am not sure he entirely addresses the wide-ranging nature of amendment 106. There is quite a lot more to it than building regulations, and the critical infrastructure issues are wide-ranging. I hear what he was saying about the way in which local resilience forums are looking at critical infrastructure, and the way that interacts with national action. I suppose we must hope that that process will have the same kind of effect that we were trying to have through amendment 106.
I am pleased that the Government have tabled new clause 28. That genuinely seems to open the door to legislative action to make a real difference to the resilience of individual propertiesat least, new properties. That seems to me quite a significant step and I am prepared to welcome that. On that basis, I will not push my amendments to a vote.

Anne McIntosh: We have had a very good debate, and I congratulate all my colleagues and thank them for the interest that they have shown. I think the amendmentscertainly amendment 107could potentially be complementary to our new clauses.
Mindful of your strictures, Mr. Chope, that I must make any comments on stand part, I would just like to make two comments on clause 21. We are wedded to the fact that the local community should be the master in the Peak district, and that subsection (1)(a) refers to a register guided by
the opinion of the authority.
Obviously, this would obtain local support. However, subsection (2) undermines thispossibly unnecessarilyby encouraging the Minister to
make provision about the content of the register.
Would the Minister therefore be mindedpossibly at a later stageto drop subsection (2):
Surely we must trust the local authorities to do their bit. That is part of our agenda of localism and trusting local communities, and we feel it could be undermined. We have some sympathy with the comments made about that by the Local Government Flood Forum.
The appeals process, which was mentioned earlier, is crucial here. If we put down a marker now, would the Government be minded to extend the appeals process, at a later stage, against the detail of enforcement notice, as well as allowing an appeal against the notice itself? It would be interesting if the Minister moved in that direction. I welcome the Ministers comments and I thank him for speaking at length.
We will obviously consider new clauses 17, 18 and 19 further. However, we want to press amendment 26 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put. (Standing Order No. 88)

Adjourned till this day at Four oclock.